Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

I guess my point is there had never been a movie adaptation of a book that was too long.

"Horton Hears a Who" is too long... (pretty much all large screen Dr. Seuss adaptations are too long). (And don't get me started on all the great adaptations that were only great because the source material was largely ignored....)

That being said, In other news, because the film was turned into a trilogy (or it is a quadrilogy now? Pentalogy? It'll get there, just give the producers some time...), and other reasons, productions for BBC's Sherlock have been put on hold until later 2013. So not only has Jackson stretched out a children's book unnecessarily (sorry Tolkien fans, I just don't see a reason for three films), now we don't get BBC's Sherlock until 2014. Woe is me...

It was to be two films, but as we saw with the Lord of the Rings, Jackson doesn't make short films. I imagine the Producers decide to go with three films just because the two were so freaking long. So instead of something like 45 minutes of extra material for extended version, we get a third film instead (with probably still 10 or 15 minutes of extra footage in each as they recut things they still needed to drop for a "reasonable feature length film".

Watching this, I feel the film is in safe hands. Though I am amazed that in the end, two people including Jackson just finish the final cut of the film on an ordinary desktop in an ordinary room (that looks like it could fit into any normal household). Guess that's what happened with the digital age.

"Horton Hears a Who" is too long... (pretty much all large screen Dr. Seuss adaptations are too long). (And don't get me started on all the great adaptations that were only great because the source material was largely ignored....)

That being said, In other news, because the film was turned into a trilogy (or it is a quadrilogy now? Pentalogy? It'll get there, just give the producers some time...), and other reasons, productions for BBC's Sherlock have been put on hold until later 2013. So not only has Jackson stretched out a children's book unnecessarily (sorry Tolkien fans, I just don't see a reason for three films), now we don't get BBC's Sherlock until 2014. Woe is me...

Your loss, my gain. These will be the first movies I've seen in theaters in quite some time now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willx

Single book childrens novel -> 3 movies

Outlook is not optimistic

I'll take my chances. Ardent Tolkien fandom is overpowering any such concerns in my case.

"Lord of the Rings" fanboys and general movie buffs alike have been buzzing for months over the debut of Peter Jackson's new film format in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." The mega director doubled the frame rate of the film -- to reported dizzying effects.

Some footage of the 3D film's high frame rate (HFR) was previewed at CinemaCon over the summer to mixed response -- many complaining that the extreme sharpness of the images takes away from film's historic beauty.

But now that select audiences and film journalists are starting to see "The Hobbit" in its entirety, some are saying the higher frame rate of 48 frames per second (fps) is not only a visual oddity, but also disorienting. (Most of today's films are shot on cameras that capture 24 frames per second. The higher the frame rate, the sharper, more real the image.)

"The filming technique made [audience members] nauseous and dizzy, with some even complaining of migraines," The New Zealand Herald reported as some of the reaction they were getting from early viewers of the film. "You have to hold your stomach down and let your eyes pop at first to adjust," one fan in New Zealand tweeted.

Indeed, during an early viewing in Wellington, New Zealand, I encountered one viewer who complained of a headache after seeing the film, attributing the ailment to the film's new visual extravaganza.

Collider reviewer Dave Trumbore listed a con of the film: "Definite 'motion sickness' potential during scenes of chaotic action or fast movement." He further described the 48fps as making you feel as though you're on set with the actors. So when they, say, "take a crazy tumble down a rabbit hole, for example, you feel just as disoriented…which might not be too pleasant for some."

Hrmm, now I'm not sure whether I want to watch in 3D or not. I usually don't do 3D at all, given that I wear glasses normally and glasses on top of glasses is a pain. But the seats are better and the screen bigger in that version (at the theatres I go to). Add this on top of it... gah.

Hrmm, now I'm not sure whether I want to watch in 3D or not. I usually don't do 3D at all, given that I wear glasses normally and glasses on top of glasses is a pain. But the seats are better and the screen bigger in that version (at the theatres I go to). Add this on top of it... gah.

I had some aversions to 3D until I saw the Avengers in 3D. I imagine the Hobbit would be beyond epic that way. It's only 10 more days until release

Depends on the type of 3D glasses, or perhaps the frame you wear. I've not have issues with 3d glassess. Only the really old ones they gave with 3D comic books in the mid-1980s gave me any problems. And I had larger frame then.

I wear glasses as well, but I don't mind because at my local theatres, the glasses go right on top of my own and don't ever interfere with them (i.e. no physical collisions). My main aversions stem from motion-sickness. When I first saw Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 2, the movie was 3D and I was feeling like I was in a combat fighter.

Now, back to the Hobbit, I can't wait to see it; in particular, I'm itching to listen to "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold"

I heard a rumor that one person, while watching a preview release of The Hobbit with 3D glasses on, actually had a hobbit jump out of the movie screen and follow him home. That's too realistic imo, I'm scared to wear the glasses to the movie now

It's pretty nifty that Tolkein is skilled at both prose and songwriting. I have a fair amount of writing under my belt (Just one story, granted, but it's a story that's over 3,000 pages and around two million words), and in the field of storywriting I consider myself decent enough, but as for songwriting... there was exactly one scene in the story where I tried my hand at having one of the characters sing a song with lyrics I made up myself. The song I wrote was... uh... well, I'll just say that even though it's been nearly three years since I wrote it, I'm still too embarrassed to have ever gone back to read it. Maybe in a few centuries or so I will.